Evolution isn't working fast enough. More dumbasses need to be shot.

Category

Firearms

Post election meltdown by liberals is quite frankly rather funny, but also a little terrifying. When offered a solution to their problems, they immediately show their complete lack of discipline. This is why modern liberals can’t have nice things or be trusted to uphold rights.

The Wednesday ruling that the federal ban on interstate handgun transfers is unconstitutional, and that Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been enjoined from enforcing that provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unquestionably huge news. While no one knows at this point what an appeal will result in, the “strict scrutiny” standard employed by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor and his definitive opinion that the ban “is unconstitutional on its face” is sending shock waves through the citizen disarmament community, trying its best to downplay the significance of this setback to their goals.

So my local paper ran a really dumb anti-CCW editorial. It was so riddled with nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods that it was just begging for a fisking. As usual, the original is in italics and my comments are in bold.

In our opinion: Utah gun law that canceled USU speech is an embarrassment

The only embarrassment here is the dreck that passes for writing at the Deseret News now.

The inability of Utah State University to impose reasonable protections for a speaker who had received death threats is more than just an embarrassment to the state. It is alarming.

No. It isn’t, and we’ll get to why later. This is typical breathless editorial speak, used by the willfully manipulative to sway the useful idiots. When you start breaking down the actual facts it is neither alarming nor embarrassing. It is Utah following the rule of law as opposed to…

Do readily available guns make a society more safe as citizens are better able to protect themselves and deter wrongdoers, or, do more guns make a society more violent and dangerous?

Well, there’s a world of information to look at to get answers. Literally. For many years now, some countries, such as England, Singapore, and New Zealand, have made it all but impossible for their citizens to lawfully own and possess let alone use a loaded firearm. Other countries, like the United States, Israel, and Bulgaria have made it only moderately cumbersome for a citizen to lawfully obtain the right to own and possess a loaded firearm. Do the strict gun control countries enjoy lower rates of crime or higher?

As I set out to investigate the relationship between the freedom to carry firearms and violent crime, I could not find a source that gauged a nation’s freedom to possess…

So, it seems that the politicians in Connecticut are a little perplexed that people aren’t registering their firearms like good little lemmings are supposed to. Given how prior gun registration requirements have morphed into gun confiscation lists I don’t blame the residents of CT one bit. In fact, I may even question the sanity of the 50,000 people who did register.

In reality, gun registration is simply another step along the way to a gun ban which won’t keep anyone safer. We’ve seen it Great Britain, Australia and now New York and California. Crime rates aren’t actually tied in with gun ownership rates, but the gun control lobby just doesn’t seem to grasp reality. Making people register their firearms isn’t going to do a damn thing to reduce crime.

It will be interesting to see what CT ends up doing. When you pass a law that people don’t follow, do you decide to repeal it or enforce it anyway and turn most of your citizens into felons? How much civil disobedience needs to take place before subject matter penetrates the politicians thick skulls?

In a related note, South Carolina governor Haley offered her support to the idea of Constitutional Carry, or the right to bear a firearm without need to get permission from the state. The left wing media and gun control lobby immediately lost its collective shit. The comments on the Rachel Maddow Facebook page are priceless in just how clueless the ignorant sit-at-home-and-bitch-because-I’m-too-scared-to-deal-with-life crowd is.

If the objects above cause you consternation, pain or hyperventilating, you might want to speak to your doctor about some anxiety medication. ‘Gun Control’ should mean putting lead on target, not relieving me of my lawful property.

So, this guy James Schlarmann decided he’d like to tackle the gun control debate. His blog, Political Garbage Chute, is aptly titled, as it comes off as a bunch of garbage. He says it’s a left leaning satirical site, but I’m apparently too dense to note the satire. Actually, what I see is condescension in stuff like “We’re sorry that your paranoia has made you afraid of the government and law enforcement. But the adults are trying to have a conversation.”

One of his points is that “We’re a violent species, warring on each other since the very first time a caveman told another caveman to get out of his cave and go find a cave of his own, and no one is denying that humans will find a way to kill humans regardless of the tool they choose to use, but nothing changes the fact that it is in our best interest to tightly control tools of wanton murder.” Apparently he’s of the strict Darwinian model of ‘survival of the fittest’, where the biggest-baddest-mutha rules the day. Personally, I would prefer not to have take on some 200 lb MMA practitioner with just a frying pan I was able to grab in the kitchen let alone my bare hands. And, I certainly don’t want my wife or daughter having to do it. So, the obvious choice, should I feel the need, to defend myself, my family or my property is to utilize a tool that allows a more equal playing field.Continue reading ““Reasonable” gun control”→